How many “Americas” are there? It has become obvious over the decades, and particularly in Trumpian America, that ordinary people living in the United States are never represented by the people who find a way to acquire positions of political power — largely because said power is contingent upon the network of money. It isn’t by accident that millionaires and billionaires always end up looking after Washington.
The reality of America is grim. It’s a country riven by a deep economic divide, characterized by significant disparities in wealth and income that have persisted and grown over decades.
Wealth in the U.S. is extremely concentrated at the top. The richest 10 percent of families own about 69 percent of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 50 percent hold only around 6 percent, and just 3 percent if excluding future Social Security income.
Income inequality has risen steadily since 1980, with the top 1 percent seeing their incomes grow by over 500 percent in recent decades, while the bottom 20 percent have experienced only modest gains barely outpacing inflation. Factors driving this include technological change, globalization, decline of unions, stagnant minimum wage, and tax policies favoring the wealthy.
Rising inequality has led to diminished economic opportunity and mobility for lower-income Americans, sometimes described as “The Great Gatsby Curve,” where inequality correlates with less upward mobility.
The divide also fuels political polarization and social fragmentation, with economic disparities reinforcing ideological divides and legislative gridlock.
Despite overall national wealth reaching record highs, these gains are unevenly distributed, often tied up in illiquid assets like homes and stocks that many lower-income families cannot readily access to meet daily expenses.
The U.S. has higher income and wealth inequality than most other developed countries, with a Gini coefficient comparable to some developing nations, highlighting the extremity of the divide.
It’s also true that plutocrats — wealthy individuals with significant financial resources — tend to hold substantial political power in America, influencing policymaking and governance, and who therefore ensure that governance that would slow down or even stop their own wealth generating systems can never be threatened.
Studies indicate that despite democratic frills like elections, actual policymaking is heavily influenced by powerful business organizations and affluent individuals rather than the broader electorate. This means that decisions in Congress are often determined by funders, not voters, rendering the U.S. closer to a plutocracy where a few rich people hold disproportionate power.
Since the mid-2000s, conservative and progressive donor consortia, such as the Koch seminars and the Democracy Alliance, have amplified the political influence of wealthy donors by channeling large sums into elections and political organizations. These networks shape policy proposals and political agendas, effectively reshaping power centers beyond just financial contributions.
Under recent administrations, notably the Trump administration, there has been a visible presence of ultra-wealthy individuals occupying key government positions. For example, Trump appointed numerous billionaires and multimillionaires to cabinet and ambassadorial roles, making his administration one of the richest democratically elected governments in history.
The high cost of presidential campaigns (up to $1 billion) and the influence of money in buying political favors and lobbying have led to a system where wealth effectively buys political power, including influence over Congress and the Supreme Court.
In effect, plutocrats in America exert significant political power by funding and shaping political campaigns and agendas, occupying key government positions themselves, influencing legislation and policy to favor their interests, and by creating networks that mobilize resources and political pressure. In other words, policymaking increasingly reflects the interests of a wealthy elite rather than the broader population.
Officially, the U.S. is a republic by constitutional design, employing representative democracy to elect officials. Yet, the overwhelming influence of economic elites and wealthy donors in shaping policy and political power means that the country functions more like a plutocracy — a system ruled by the wealthy — than a true democracy where all citizens have equal political influence.
As noted, research shows that policymaking in the U.S. is heavily influenced by wealthy individuals, corporate interests, and powerful donor networks rather than by the general voting public. For example, studies by Gilens and Page (2014) found that government policies tend to reflect the preferences of economic elites and organized business groups more than those of average citizens.
The influence of money in politics, through campaign contributions and lobbying, allows affluent donors to shape legislation and political agendas. Wealthy donor consortia, such as those linked to the Koch brothers, have built extensive networks to push policies favorable to their interests, effectively controlling political outcomes beyond the reach of ordinary voters.
The U.S. Constitution was originally crafted by propertied men who enshrined systems that concentrated power among wealthy elites. While the U.S. holds regular elections and guarantees freedoms central to democracy, the substantive influence of the middle and lower classes in policymaking has diminished. The political system operates in a way where “contributors of billions” effectively determine Congressional decisions, undermining the democratic principle of equal voice for all citizens.
In starkly money terms, there are two Americas — that of the plutocrats and that of all the rest. The question then arises — why would American plutocrats share their political power with, let alone hand it over to, those who have no money? After all, for whom does political power exist?
So, all the moralizing about “democracy” and “the American people” becomes a method for sustaining the dominance of the moneyed, from among whose ranks this candidate or that emerges who promises to “the American people” yet another unattainable dreamscape. This modus operandi works, because said people have an infinite capacity to hate political opponents — for them, it is always the other guy (Democrat or Republican, it matters not) who stands in the way of attaining their “American dream.” A vicious cycle perfectly suited to sustain the dominance of the moneyed.
Thus, hatred is one of America’s greatest political tools today, wielded deliberately by the plutocrats to mobilize voters, deepen polarization, and maintain power, with significant consequences for social cohesion and democratic governance. Nothing mobilizes voters quicker than hatred.
Hatred is used by American politicians to fracture society and create deep, lasting divisions, which politicians exploit to rally support and consolidate power. Hate-driven politics reduces complex issues to simple binaries, scapegoating certain groups for economic or social problems. Hatred of political opponents motivates voter turnout more than enthusiasm for one’s own candidate, making hate a prime driver of political behavior in the U.S.
Needless to say, the use of hate as a political currency is highly contagious and destructive, undermining whatever remains of civil society and democracy by fostering fear, division, and violence. Hate politics has eroded democratic norms and civil discourse.
But this does hold a greater purpose. If the plebs keep hating each other for being Democrats or Republicans, they will always look to plutocrats as saviors who shall lead them into the “real America.” And all the while, the reality of their own, individual lives remains bleak and even hopeless — a reality unimaginable, and thus unreal, for the plutocrats.
How many “Americas” are there? As many as there are hatreds.
Read more on Signs Of The TImes
